If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

No they are leaving the EU in March. This is about striking a deal with the EU on the exit, like how to handle trade, borders, EU citizens living in the UK and vice versa, and apparently how much money the UK has to pay the EU (I have no idea what for)

Ah, well, like I said, I haven't really been following it.

One thing I do know: the EU has largely been a failure.

Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God

"The deal was doomed by deep opposition from both sides of the divide over U.K.'s place in the bloc. Pro-Brexit lawmakers say the deal will leave Britain bound indefinitely to EU rules, while pro-EU politicians favor an even closer economic relationship with Europe."https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...tish-lawmakers

It sounds like the PM was trying to create a deal that would have effectively kept Britain in the EU in some unofficial capacity. So my earlier summation wasn't entirely off the mark.

Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God

“I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” ― Anne Lamott
“And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell

Essentially what happened is a lot of Brexiteers on the Conservative side voted against it since it would pretty much leave us as a vassel state to the EU still signed up to most of it but with no voting rights.

"The deal was doomed by deep opposition from both sides of the divide over U.K.'s place in the bloc. Pro-Brexit lawmakers say the deal will leave Britain bound indefinitely to EU rules, while pro-EU politicians favor an even closer economic relationship with Europe."https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...tish-lawmakers

It sounds like the PM was trying to create a deal that would have effectively kept Britain in the EU in some unofficial capacity. So my earlier summation wasn't entirely off the mark.

The Brexiteers who voted against it are going for a no deal exit which they hope will happen if a deal isn't agreed upon by end of March.

Essentially what happened is a lot of Brexiteers on the Conservative side voted against it since it would pretty much leave us as a vassel state to the EU still signed up to most of it but with no voting rights.

I'm not sure about that point. Any negotiation, handled by anyone, would be a re-shuffle of the basic, existing building blocks: degree of access to the single market in exchange for degree of acceptance of EU rules.

To simplify it further: we can choose severe economic damage, or some degree of vassalage. Parliament seems to be violently rejecting both ideas.

The Brexiteers who voted against it are going for a no deal exit which they hope will happen if a deal isn't agreed upon by end of March.

According to Article 50, we leave automatically at the end of March if there is a deal (or in this case really a transition period) or not, unless we request to extend article 50. The EU have said they can do this, but only for a General Election or a re-run of the vote. Otherwise there isn't any point - unless the UK Government shifts its own red lines.

Once May had committed to leave the single market, customs union and jurisdiction of the European court of justice, and once she accepted that there could be no hard border in Ireland, then she had all but written the withdrawal agreement that MPs rejected last night.

I'm for a second referendum personally, though I'm not blind to the issues that would cause (I'd actually argue that the cat is out of the bag now). What would be the question? A vague leave/remain vote isn't on - it was done before and we've lived through several years of trying to manage a deal with no clear definition- leave campaigners discussed several mutually exclusive options during the previous referendum.

I did originally think a referendum based on May's deal and remain was the best option- as no Governemnt would vote for a no deal and they have clearly said as much (barring the head-bangers) for the last few years. Last nights vote put paid to that though. It lost so thoroughly, that one cannot realistically now put it to the people - and who would campaign for it?

A referendum between Remain and No Deal? That’s attractive because the polls suggest that Remain would romp home, and it would properly settle the question. But if No Deal was to win? The morning after, politicians would solemnly declare they respect the result and will now prepare to implement it. 3 years later, they’ll still be in total paralysis trying to work out how to not do it. No one will ever implement that, so it would be pointless to have it on any ballot. It’s too ridiculous.

Only one realistic option is left standing, then: parliament unilaterally revokes article 50, and we bin Brexit. The Leavers can then regroup and come back with a new Brexit plan that takes account of everything we’ve learned in the past 3 years that isn't pie in the sky fantasy.

May’s deal was the only realistic Brexit given her red lines. MPs chose to kill it, so they now need to follow the logic of their own actions and hit the eject button.

This was the 'meaningful vote' on the Withdrawal Agreement. No country has exited the EU before so it's bound to be tricky. Brexit will happen but exactly how is yet to be decided ... unless it all goes off the rails.

So, in the founding documents for the EU, there was no provision for any country to exit?